THE ISSUE WITH IVAN THE TERRIBLE

Transcription

1

2 H IS TO RY: F IC T ION OR S C IE N C E? l B O O K 10 THE ISSUE WITH IVAN THE TERRIBLE ANATOLY FOMENKO GLEB NOSOVSKIY

3 THE ISSUE WITH IVAN THE TERRIBLE By Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovskiy Book 10 of History: Fiction or Science? series. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the publisher. Critics are welcome, of course, to quote brief passages by way of criticism and review. Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovskiy assert the moral right to be identified as the authors of this work. Translated from Russian by Mikhail Yagupov Design & layout: Paul Bondarovski Project management: Franck Tamdhu On the cover: Viktor Vasnetsov. Czar Ivan the Terrible (1897). Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow. Copyright Delamere Resources LLC Published by Delamere Resources LLC Publisher s website:

4 About the authors Fomenko, Anatoly Timofeevich (b. 1945). Full Member (Academician) of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Full Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Full Member of the International Higher Education Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Physics and Mathematics, Professor, Head of the Moscow State University Section of Mathematics of the Department of Mathematics and Mechanics. Solved Plateau s Problem from the theory of minimal spectral surfaces. Author of the theory of invariants and topological classification of integrable Hamiltonian dynamic systems. Laureate of the 1996 National Premium of the Russian Federation (in Mathematics) for a cycle of works on the Hamiltonian dynamical systems and manifolds invariants theory. Author of 200 scientific publications, 28 monographs and textbooks on mathematics, a specialist in geometry and topology, calculus of variations, symplectic topology, Hamiltonian geometry and mechanics, computer geometry. Author of a number of books on the development of new empiricostatistical methods and their application to the analysis of historical chronicles as well as the chronology of antiquity and the Middle Ages. Nosovskiy, Gleb Vladimirovich (b. 1958). Candidate of Physics and Mathematics (MSU,Moscow, 1988), specialist in theory of probability, mathematical statistics, theory of probabilistic processes, theory of optimization, stochastic differential equations, computer modelling of stochastic processes, computer simulation.worked as researcher of computer geometry in Moscow Space Research Institute, in Moscow Machine Tools and Instruments Institute, in Aizu University in Japan. Faculty member of the Department of Mathematics and Mechanics MSU.

5 Overview of the e-series History: Fiction or Science? by Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovskiy Book 1: The Issue with Chronology Book 2: Astronomy vs. History

6 Book 3: The Apocalypse Seen by Astronomy Book 4: The Issue with Dark Ages Book 5: The Issue with Antiquity

7 Book 6: The Issue with Troy Book 7: The Issue with Russian History Book 8: Horde From Pacific to Atlantic

8 Book 9: The Issue with Mongols Book 10: The Issue with Ivan the Terrible Book 11: The Issue with Tamerlane

9 Book 12: USA Has Issues with Maps of 18th Century Book 13: The Issue with Czar s Helmet Book 14: The Issue with Russian Tartary

10 Book 15: The Issue with British History Book 16: Crusades and Exoduses Book 17: Maps and Coins vs. History

11 Book 18: Swords and Mantles Tell History Book 19: The Testament of Peter the Great

12 From the publisher The series History: Fiction or Science? contains data, illustrations, charts and formulae containing irrefutable evidence of mathematical, statistical and astronomical nature. You may as well skip all of it during your first reading. Feel free to use them in your eventual discussions with the avid devotees of classical chronology. In fact, before reading this book, you have most probably been one of such devotees. After reading History: Fiction or Science? you will develop a more critical attitude to the dominating historical discourse or even become its antagonist.you will be confronted with natural disbelief when you share what you ve learned with others. Now you are very well armed in face of inevitable scepticism. This book contains enough solid evidence to silence any historian by the sheer power of facts and argumentation. History: Fiction or Science? is the most explosive tractate on history ever written however, every theory it contains, no matter how unorthodox, is backed by solid scientific data. The dominating historical discourse in its current state was essentially crafted in the XVI century from a rather contradictory jumble of sources such as innumerable copies of ancient Latin and Greek manuscripts whose originals had vanished in the Dark Ages and the allegedly irrefutable proof offered by late mediaeval astronomers, resting upon the power of ecclesial authorities. Nearly all of its components are blatantly untrue! For some of us, it shall possibly be quite disturbing to see the magnificent edifice of classical history to turn into an ominous simulacrum brooding over the snake pit of mediaeval politics. Twice so, in fact: the first seeing the legendary millenarian dust on the ancient marble turn into a mere layer of dirt one that meticulous unprejudiced research can eventually remove.the second, and greater, attack of unease comes with the awareness of just how many areas of human knowledge still trust the

13 elephants, turtles and whales of the consensual chronology to support them. Nothing can remedy that except for an individual chronological revolution happening in the minds of a large enough number of people.

14 Contents About the authors Overview of the e-series From the publisher PART ONE. The epoch of Ivan the Terrible. The origins of Russian history, its authors and their methods 1. The Great Strife as a collision between two dynasties. The end of the Horde and the beginning of the Romanovian reign 2. Surviving original documents dating from the epoch of Ivan the Terrible 3. Oddities in the traditional version of the biography of Ivan the Terrible 4. The Great Strife of the XVI-XVII century as the epoch of the struggle between the Old Russian (Mongolian) Horde dynasty and the new Western dynasty of the Romanovs. The end of the Russo-Mongolian Horde in the XVII century 5. The reign of Ivan the Terrible in our reconstruction 5.1. Ivan IV Vassilyevich as the first Czar of Ivan s epoch, regnant in The infant Dmitriy Ivanovich as the second Czar from the period of Ivan the Terrible regnant in The de facto reign of the elected council 5.3. The third period of Ivan the Terrible as the reign of the infant Ivan Ivanovich in The Zakharyins (Romanovs) and their ascension to power. The repressions and the Oprichnina 5.4. Simeon Beckboulatovich regnant in as the fourth period of Ivan the Terrible 5.5. The famous synodical of Ivan the Terrible as repentance for the young Czar Ivan Ivanovich

15 6. The creation of the Litsevoy Svod and its dating 7. In re the numerous wives of Ivan the Terrible PART TWO. The Great Strife in Russian history of the XVII century 8. The period between the death of Ivan the Terrible, also known as Simeon, and the Great Strife 9. Czar Boris Fyodorovich Godunov 9.1. Czar Boris Fyodorovich is most likely to have been the son of Czar Fyodor Ivanovich 9.2. Our hypothesis about Boris Godunov being the son of Czar Fyodor is confirmed by the old documents 9.3. The reasons why the Romanovs had distorted the history of Boris Godunov 9.4. The legal heir of Czar Fyodor Ivanovich 9.5. Could Czar Boris Godunov have been a son of Fyodor Ivanovich, a minor landlord? 9.6. The role of Boris Godunov during the reign of Czar Ivan and Czar Fyodor 9.7. The famous legend about the lengthy pleas for Boris to ascend the throne as a political myth that dates from the epoch of the Romanovs 9.8. The age of Czar Boris at the time of his demise 10. The Great Strife. Czar Dmitriy Ivanovich, also known as Lzhedmitriy the false Dmitriy The unsolved enigma of the Russian history The boyar plot against Czar Boris The false Dmitriy as the real Prince Dmitriy, son of Czar Ivan The Romanovs as the authors of the version that claimed Dmitriy to have been an impostor The plot of the boyars and the murder of Czar Dmitriy, known as Lzhedmitriy the First

16 10.6. The reasons for the cremation of the false Dmitriy s body Lzhedmitriy II as Czar Dmitriy, also known as Lzhedmitriy I 11. The war against Stepan Timofeyevich Razin and the victory of the Romanovs 12. The destruction of the old imperial books of ranks by the Romanovs and the creation of false genealogical documents to replace them 13. The possible location of the famous library formerly owned by Ivan the Terrible Overview of the seven-volume print edition Also by Analoly T. Fomenko Also by Gleb V. Nosovskiy Bibliography

17 History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren t there. George Santayana, American philosopher ( ) Be wary of mathematiciens, particularly when they speak the truth. St. Augustine History repeats itself; that s one of the things that s wrong with history. Clarence Darrow Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. George Orwell, 1984

18 PART ONE The epoch of Ivan the Terrible. The origins of Russian history, its authors and their methods

19 1. The Great Strife as a collision between two dynasties. The end of the Horde and the beginning of the Romanovian reign The epoch of Ivan the Terrible is considered to be known to us quite well. Alas and alack, this is far from truth, as many of the modern historians are well aware. However, this fact usually remains concealed from public attention for reasons made obvious below. Apparently, the epoch of Ivan the Terrible is one of the most obscure, interesting and intriguing periods in Russian history. It is this very epoch that serves as a watershed between the times when Russia had also been known as the Horde and the reign of the Romanovs. These two epochs are separated by the reign of Ivan the Terrible and the Great Strife of the XVI-XVII century that came in its wake. It is usually presumed that the Great Strife began after the death of Boris Godunov; however, we shall demonstrate the fallacy of this presumption shortly. The strife began much earlier, and covers almost the entire epoch of Ivan the Terrible. This is one of the major discrepancies between our version and that of the Millerian and Romanovian historians.

20 2. Surviving original documents dating from the epoch of Ivan the Terrible R. G. Skrynnikov, a researcher of the epoch in question, tells us the following: The primary hindrance encountered by every researcher of The Great Terror of the XVI century [the author is referring to the epoch of Ivan the Terrible Auth.] is the extreme scarcity of sources. Historians are forced to construct long chains of hypotheses in order to solve equations with many variables The archives of the Oprichniks that contained the court files dating from the terror epoch [the epoch of Ivan the Terrible Auth.] were destroyed completely ([755], page 10). Further also: The condition of the XVI century Russian archives and libraries is the worst in Europe ([775], page 23). Moreover, even the documents that did reach our day bear distinct traces of later tendentious editing. Skrynnikov reports the following: The official chronicle of the Czars has reached our days in a number of copies. The first chapters of the Synodal chronicle served as a draft of sorts. This text was edited under Adashev, with a clean copy made subsequently. It was a splendorous edition illustrated with a multitude of brilliant miniatures The very beginning of the book describes the demise of Basil III. It was supposed to span the entire reign of Ivan the Terrible; however, the work on the Book of the Czars had been interrupted, and somebody s authoritative introduced a great many corrections and insertions ([776], page 81).

21 Czar Ivan the Terrible. Miniature from the Book of the Czars of Thus, the Book of the Czars is by no means an original document, but rather somebody s more recent version. Many of the alterations introduced into the book are of a polemical and rhetorical nature D. N. Alschitz was the first to have noticed the striking similarity between the insertions and the first epistle of Ivan the Terrible to Kurbskiy, suggesting them to be related ([775], page 25). However, Russian historiographers have long ago voice the justified opinion that the famous correspondence of Ivan the Terrible and Kurbskiy is a literary work of fiction written by S. I. Shakhovskiy in the XVII century ([775], page 37). Therefore, the rather precarious remark of the historians about the insertions into the Book of the Czars being similar to the correspondence between Ivan the Terrible and Kurbskiy must imply that the chronicle itself (the Book of the Czars, that is) was written and edited in the XVII century. It may have been an in-between version that did not receive royal support despite the exuberant luxury of the edition and was therefore abandoned. Are there any original documents left by Ivan the Terrible? Next to none, as we are told. D. S. Likhachyov points out: Most of Ivan s

22 documents, likewise many other Russian literary works, only survived as late copies made in the XVII century ([651], page 183). As Romanovian copies, in other words. As we have already mentioned, the Romanovs destroyed most of the old Russian historical documents in the XVII century and edited others in a manner they found convenient. It is presumed that several original documents dating from the epoch of Ivan the Terrible have reached our days: fortunately, some of Ivan s works survived as XVI century copies, namely: Ivan s letter to Vassily Gryaznoi, Epistles to Simeon Beckboulatovich, Letter to Stefan Batorius dating from 1581, Letter to Sigismund II Augustus, Letter to Khodkevich, Letter to Elisabeth I, Queen of England, A copy of his [Ivan s Auth.] theological dispute with Jan Rokita ([651], page 183). These documents are all there is! Neither the famous Oprichnina edict, nor the famous synodical that is supposed to have been written by Ivan after his repentance. Even the original of his last will and testament has perished. We must point out that the testaments of many other Muscovite princes are supposed to have reached us in their original form. For instance, Vassily I Dmitrievich ( , which predates Ivan s time by 150 years, no less) has written three different wills over the years of his reign, and all of them have presumably survived as originals ([794], pages ). Even the original testament of Ivan Kalita is said to have survived ([794], page 147), despite being 250 years older than the documents of Ivan the Terrible, which has only survived as a single later copy, which is in a poor condition and does not contain any date ([775], page 51). By the way, even in the precious few cases when the original document should theoretically be in a perfect condition, the situation lacks clarity

23 completely. For example, the letter sent by Ivan the Terrible to Elizabeth I, Queen of England, is an official document that has survived as an original. The parchment scroll, which is a great deal more resilient than paper, has been kept in London ever since its reception from Moscow in 1570 ([639], pages 587 and 115). However, this missive contains a number of lacunae, and the text is illegible in a number of places ([639], page 587). The document must have been damaged deliberately for some reason. It is presumed that the predecessors of Ivan the Terrible have left a large number of original documents behind. For instance, the compilation entitled Russian Seals of State ([794]) contains a list of some 40 allegedly original documents dating from the epoch of Ivan III Vassilyevich. However, there isn t a single document with a personal seal of Ivan the Terrible anywhere in this compilation. Thus, the only documents that contain information pertinent to the epoch of Ivan the Terrible have reached our epoch as recent copies. For instance, the entire famed history of Ivan the Terrible and his deeds is based on rather suspicious copies manufactured in the XVII century the earliest. Skrynnikov s fundamental oeuvre dedicated to the epoch of Ivan the Terrible ([775]) does not contain a single original document in the Sources chapter little wonder that he should allude to equations with multiple variables, q.v. above.

24 3. Oddities in the traditional version of the biography of Ivan the Terrible We shall refrain from giving a detailed rendition of Ivan s biography as it is reflected in school textbooks, assuming the reader to be familiar with it from the multitude of available sources. We shall cover it in brief so as to point out the numerous oddities contained therein those are often quite out of proportion. The most conspicuous ones are as follows: 1. In 1553 Ivan the Terrible appoints a council of custodians for none other but himself. It is presumed that the council s mission had been the custody of his infant son Dmitriy. However, Ivan recuperated from his ailment, yet did not dismiss the council. Could there have been a council of custodians over an omnipotent monarch in good health? 2. Fealties to Ivan the Terrible were sworn several times, which is quite nonsensical, since this event takes place only once in a lifetime of a single monarch. Nevertheless, there were several fealties sworn to Ivan; moreover, he was even inaugurated for a second time, with much pomp and fanfare, many years after his ascension to the throne. Could it be that his first inauguration in 1547 was forgotten, and so it was decided to repeat it in 1572, 25 years later? There were no other multiple fealties or inaugurations anywhere in Russian history. 3. Ivan the Terrible makes Simeon Beckboulatovich Czar presumably in order to replace himself, no less. The absurd explanation is that he found it easier to control the Duma in this manner. 4. Ivan the Terrible had destroyed Novgorod completely and then decided to move the capital, the court and the state treasury there, q.v. in [775], page 498 presumably to install his throne among the

25 charred ruins of the city. All of these oddities make historians characterise Ivan the Terrible as a schizoid. P. I. Kovalevskiy, for instance, used to claim that the Czar had been a neurasthenic, and his paranoia and persecution mania resulted in the creation of the Oprichnina ([775], pages ). Indeed, a person acting in such a manner resembles a schizoid to a great extent. However, we must enquire whether we do indeed have an understanding of the events that took place in that epoch. Do they all pertain to the biography of a single monarch? Could it be that several monarchs were compressed into just one Czar? This would change our entire perception of the epoch in question. Let us relate our hypothesis.

26 4. The Great Strife of the XVI-XVII century as the epoch of the struggle between the old Russian (Mongolian) Horde dynasty and the new Western dynasty of the Romanovs. The end of the Russo- Mongolian Horde in the XVII century According to our hypothesis, the entire reign of Ivan the Terrible ( ) can be naturally divided into four reigns of four different Czars, which were later united into a single figure by the historians. This was done in the XVII century, under the Romanovs, for a distinct political purpose namely, justifying the claim for the Russian throne made by Mikhail Romanov, the founder of the dynasty. An image of a great and terrible Czar who had reigned over 50 years was introduced into the mass consciousness for this purpose. The Romanovs had several goals in mind. The matter is that the Great Strife of the XVI-XVII century had not been a mere internal conflict in the Great = Mongolian Empire, but rather a long and bloody civil war, one that has led to radical changes in the Russian governmental system. The old Horde dynasty was defeated; the palace revolution was instigated by the representatives of the Romanovs, a group of aristocrats that had hailed from Pskov in the West of Russia. They had come to power in the imperial capital and changed the character of the government completely. This revolution was supported by the adherents of the Reformation in the Western Europe. The historical epoch to follow had been cardinally different, q.v. in Chron6. This is what we believe to have taken place according to our reconstruction. We shall proceed to explain how the Romanovs rewrote the history of this coup d état for the subsequent generations.

27 First and foremost, they proclaimed the previous Horde dynasty illegitimate, and the entire Mongolian (Great) epoch in Russian history, a period of exploitative foreign rule, also known as The Great Yoke. The predecessors of the Romanovs (the Horde Khans of Russia) transformed into savage invaders from faraway eastern lands who had usurped the throne of the Ryurikovich dynasty, and the former life of the country under the Mongolian invaders became a grim age of violence. The Romanovs themselves were therefore acting as the restorers of the true Russian rule who came to rescue the country from the cruel foreign invaders, or the Tartars. Godunov the Tartar was declared a villain to par no others and an infanticide. The elegance of the fraud is amazing the Romanovs did not alter actual historical facts, changing their interpretation and context instead. This has lead to profound distortions in the Russian history of the Great = Mongolian period. The remnants of the Cossack troops (or the former Horde) were driven towards the faraway regions of the empire and declared runaway slaves and exiled villains. The surviving historical documents were edited tendentiously, having transformed completely. The Romanovian historians received direct orders to create a history of the malicious Horde and created a seemingly plausible version. However, they could not alter everything; we have therefore got some hope of reconstructing the true picture of our history. However, despite this primary strategic objective, the Romanovs had a number of other goals in mind. Those were of a technical and tactical nature, but vital to the Romanovs nonetheless, namely: a. To conceal the fact that the Great Strife really began in the middle of the XVI century and not in the XVII back in the days of Ivan the Terrible, and their own subversive role therein. b. To justify their claims for the throne (they had claimed kinship with the previous legitimate Czar for this purpose). c. To conceal their participation in the Oprichnina and the power

28 struggle, blaming the Terrible Czar for all of the bloodshed. d. To trace their origins to Anastasia Romanova, presumably the only legitimate wife of the Great Czar. This may be the reason why the Romanovian historians collated four Czars into one, falsely presenting their wives as the wives of a single ruler. Bear in mind that the ecclesiastical law makes the third wedding the last one that is still legitimate; therefore, the marriages of the last kings were invalidated, and their children deprived of the rights to the throne. Then Czar Fyodor Ivanovich was declared to have died without an heir falsely so. His son, Czar Boris Fyodorovich ( Godunov ), was declared usurper of the throne, which is also untrue.

29 5. The reign of Ivan the Terrible in our reconstruction 5.1. Ivan IV Vassilyevich as the first Czar of Ivan s epoch, regnant in A diagram that reflects our hypothesis schematically can be seen in fig Fig The epoch of Ivan the Terrible. According to our reconstruction, four Czars, or Khans, had reigned during this epoch, and not just one, as the Romanovian historians believe. In 1547 the 16-year-old Ivan IV Vassilyevich ascended to the throne ([776], page 23). The Czar s subjects swore fealty to their new sovereign.

30 According to our hypothesis, he was married only once to Anastasia Zakharyina Romanova, whose father, Roman Zakharyin, had been the de facto founder of the Romanovian dynasty ([775], page 94). The reign of Ivan IV Vassilyevich lasted until The most important event of his reign had been the conquest of Kazan in The very next year, in 1553, Ivan Vassilyevich fell seriously ill. He had already had an infant son called Dmitriy, and another one was born a while later ([775], page 109). Historians are of the opinion that Dmitriy s death came immediately after the crisis. Our reconstruction demonstrates this to be false. Ivan IV became afflicted by a grave ailment. He was delirious with fever and ceased to recognize his kin. His demise was expected to happen any day. In the evening of 11 March 1553 a group of boyars that had been close to the Czar swore fealty to Dmitriy, the infant heir to the throne ([776], page 48). Our opinion is that the health of Ivan IV Vassilyevich had really deteriorated to such an extent that he could not participate in the affairs of state any longer. He may indeed have died shortly afterwards. Skrynnikov points out the following circumstance, which might serve as an indirect confirmation of this fact: the prematurely sworn fealty of 1553 demonstrates that the Zakharyins had been quite certain of the Czar s imminent demise ([775], page 114). Ivan IV had become extraordinarily pious before having fallen ill. It is known that he was under a strong influence of a priest called Sylvester around that time: The conviction of the priest and the stories that he had told the 17-year-old monarch impressed Ivan greatly. The transformation of Ivan the Terrible into a religious fanatic can be credited to Sylvester The fact that the Czar had become a born-again Christian made a great impact on the customs of the court. The English travellers who visited Russia in those days were amazed by the habits of the Muscovite ruler The Czar shunned coarse amusements and did not like hunting much, finding a great pleasure in liturgies Ivan had his first visions the very same year [in 1552 Auth.] ([775], page 125).

31 Skrynnikov also reports that this epoch had been one when the socalled yourodivye, or God s fools one of the most respected ones had been Vassily the Blessed, who had gone without clothing in the winter and summertime alike and work heavy chains of iron on his neck. His death was recorded in the official annals of the state; the holy man was buried in the Troitse-Sergiyev Monastery, and his funeral was attended by a great many people ([775], page 126). The most authentic and the earliest of the surviving portraits of Ivan the Terrible is the so-called Copenhagen portrait, according to [776], page 182 (see fig. 8.2). It is kept in the royal archive of Denmark. This portrait is in fact an icon it is written upon a wooden board with egg-yolk paint in a manner characteristic for icons. Moreover, this icon has a special indentation, wherein the actual artwork is located, with the edges of the portrait protruding outwards. This is something we only find on icons, since these indentations pertain to ecclesiastical symbolism. One must also point out the fact that the manufacture of such an indentation is anything but easy this made icons a great deal more difficult to manufacture in accordance to special requirements of the ecclesiastical authorities. This is a detail that pertains to old icons painted on wooden boards before the XVII century at least.

32 Fig The icon that portrays Ivan IV (St. Basil?) Kept in the National Museum of Copenhagen. Taken from [780], colour inset after page 64. Our reconstruction is as follows: Vassily the Blessed is none other but Czar Ivan IV Vassilyevich ( ). We are of the opinion that in 1553 Czar Ivan fell gravely ill and therefore severed all his ties with the state and the affairs thereof, having become a pious ascetic, or a God s fool (yourodivy). The very name Vassily is but a version of the Greek word basileus, which translates as king. When Ivan = Vassily the Blessed (the Blessed King) had died, his death was naturally registered in the official annals, and his funeral was attended by multitudes of people it wasn t a mere ascetic that they buried, but rather a former Czar! Ivan IV = Vassily the Blessed was subsequently canonised. Apart from Vassily the Blessed, the Miracle Worker from Moscow, the Orthodox calendar also mentions Ivan the Blessed, also a Muscovite and a worker of miracles however, no details of his life are known. It is presumed that he died in Moscow in 1589, and his body was ceremonially buried in the Church of St. Vassily the Blessed ([362], Book IV, annotation 469 to Volume X). The very same Cathedral of St. Vassily the Blessed, in other words. It could be that the same historical personality (Ivan = Vassily the Blessed) ended up listed twice once as Vassily, and once more as Ivan. The fact that Ivan IV, the conqueror of Kazan, can be identified as St. Basil the Blessed is indirectly confirmed by the fact that the famous Pokrovskiy Cathedral on the Red Square in Moscow, which was built to commemorate this conquest, is still known as the Cathedral of St. Basil the Blessed The infant Dmitriy Ivanovich as the second Czar from the period of Ivan the Terrible regnant in The de facto reign of the elected council Nowadays it is presumed that the first son of Ivan IV (the infant Dmitriy)

33 had died immediately after the fealty sworn to him by the boyars in 1553 ([775], page 109). However, the documents tell us that a council of custodians was elected for the infant Dmitriy, and remained active until It is presumed that after the sudden death of the infant, Ivan IV instantly got better and proceeded to appoint a body of custodians over his own self. Historians construct different theories in order to explain the nature of this ultra-peculiar custody. According to our reconstruction, there had indeed been an appointed council of chosen custodians, however, it was ruling on behalf of the infant Czar Dmitriy and not the adult Ivan. The fealty was also sworn to the infant Czar. Although Ivan IV had appointed his brothers-in-law as chief custodians (D. R. and V. M. Youriev-Zakharyin) the influence of the Zakharyins began to waver rapidly after the events of ([775], pages 111 and 117). The matter is that the boyar council had disapproved of the Zakharyins and their leadership greatly ([775], page 111). The real position of the Zakharyins (Romanovs-to-be) had been extremely unstable around that time: The aristocracy did not want to yield the power to the Zakharyins, who neither had authority, nor popularity ([775], page 115). The key positions in the council became shifted to Adashev and the Glinskiys, the relations of the previous Czar s mother, or the grandmother of Dmitriy. The feud between the Glinskiys and the Zakharyins had been an old one When M. Glinskiy led his troops to Livonia in 1558, his soldiers were treating the entire region of Pskov [the domain of the Zakharyins (Romanovs) Auth.] as enemy territory ([775], page 147). Thus, the Zakharyins (the ancestors of the Romanovs) become distanced from Dmitriy s throne and lose their position in the government ([775], page 120). They are replaced by the Glinskiys. The difference between our version of the events that took place over this decade ( ) and the traditional version is that we ascribe these years to the reign of the infant Dmitriy, and not Ivan IV. The main event of this reign is the Livonian War.

34 Our reconstruction is as follows. In 1563, Prince Dmitriy, aged around 12, had died. We believe his death to have been ascribed to the epoch of Godunov by the Romanovian historians namely, 1591 ([777], page 67), as the famous story of Prince Dmitriy and his tragic demise in Ouglich. He must have indeed died in Ouglich however, we date this event to 1563, and not the epoch of Godunov. We shall withhold from giving a list of all details and proceed to trace out some of the parallels between the tragic demise of Prince Dmitriy Ivanovich in the alleged year 1553 and that of Prince Dimitriy Ivanovich under Godunov in The formal ruler had been Czar Fyodor. The traditional version of the first death of the infant Prince Dmitriy in 1553 (10 years earlier than our date) is as follows. He is presumed to have drowned by accident, due to the carelessness of his nanny. She is supposed to have been getting into a boat when the gangway flipped over and the infant fell into the water and drowned ([775], page 117). The traditional version of Prince Dimitriy s second demise in 1591 is also known quite well the famous Ouglich Tragedy as described by Pushkin, among others. Also an infant, also a son of Ivan IV Vassilyevich, also an accident that took place due to the negligence of a nanny the child had allegedly stabbed himself to death with a knife during a fit of epilepsy. Our opinion is that the Ouglich Tragedy reflects the real death of Prince Dmitriy in 1563 however, this event only tool place once, and became duplicated later, in the XVII century, which is when the Romanovs began to relate the history of the Horde in the version they could benefit from. Brief Corollaries a. The consensual point of view over the period of is as follows: Czar Ivan withdraws from the affairs of state, and a council of custodians led by Adashev begins to rule on his behalf. b. We are of a different opinion Czar Ivan abdicated and became an ascetic. The next Czar was his infant heir Dmitriy. The de facto ruler

35 had been Adashev, head of the custodian council known as Izbrannaya Rada (the latter word is similar to Orda, or horde ) The third period of Ivan the Terrible as the reign of the infant Ivan Ivanovich in The Zakharyins (Romanovs) and their ascension to power. The repressions and the Oprichnina Our reconstruction is as follows. After the demise of Prince Dmitriy in 1563, the second son of Ivan IV (Ivan Ivanovich) became Czar. He was aged ten or so. He must have been raised by the Zakharyins (the Romanovs), since nobody could have guessed that Dmitriy would die in early adolescence and thus make Prince Ivan heir. Indeed, when we return to the Millerian and Romanovian version, we see that in 1563 a new oath of loyalty was sworn before the Czar ([775], page 171). It is presumed that this third oath was sworn to the same Czar Ivan IV, who had presumably still been alive. Once again, historians are forced to invent explanations of this mystical third fealty. The balance of power was shifted in favour of the Zakharyins. The Rada, or the council of the custodians, had been destroyed, and Adashev was refused entry to Moscow. The Zakharyins gathered all the reins of power in their hands and instigated the mass repressions, or the famous terror of the epoch of Ivan the Terrible, q.v. below. In 1563, a decade and a half after the coronation, the envoys sent by the Patriarch of Constantinople brought the edict of the Ecumenical Council to Moscow, which confirmed the rights of the Muscovite to the title of the Czar This event was celebrated with lavish church processions, and its primary objective had been the affirmation of Ivan s power ([776], page 70; see also [775], Chapter 7, and the ensuing chapters 8-15). Isn t it odd that the power of the Czar needed to be affirmed in the seventeenth year of his reign? Having ousted both Adashev and Sylvester, Ivan IV [the young Czar

36 Ivan Ivanovich, according to our hypothesis Auth.] began to conduct his affairs aided by no one but his closest kin, paying no regard for the ageold tradition. The boyars were furious about the actions of the Czar, and positively loathed the Zakharyins, who were blamed for the death of Adashev ([775], page 171). The famous mass repressions commonly ascribed to Ivan the Terrible only began around this time. We are of the opinion that the repressions did in fact take place however, they were masterminded and perpetrated by the Zakharyins, who had launched a campaign of eliminating their opposition, which nearly amounted to the entire Old Russian (or Mongolian ) aristocracy of the old Horde dynasty. The two groups the imperial forces of the old Horde and the new pro-western group of the Zakharyins (later known as the Romanovs) that plotted for the throne. The conflict in question was nothing short of a civil war, and marks the actual beginning of the Great Strife in Russia (or the Horde). Russian history was written around this time; more specifically, the first attempts of revising it have been made. The goals were blatantly political, which is common knowledge nowadays: Concern about the emerging boyar heresy had led the monarch to the idea of revising the history of his reign, which was implemented in ([775], page 172). Modern research demonstrates that the chronicles were written on French paper, imported from France for this purpose specifically ([775], page 20). The official Muscovite chronographic activity reached its peak in the 1550 s and the early 1560 s; its complete cessation after 1568 had taken place for a number of reasons The fate of the people who were put in charge of the chronicle production had been tragic The typesetter Ivan Viskovatiy was executed All attempts of resurrecting the civic chronicle writing were doomed because of the reigning terror. Any servant of the state who would replace the killed I. Viskovatiy would be putting his life in mortal danger if he decided to describe the Novgorod pogrom ([775], page 22). Thus, we learn that the people who were writing Russian history in that epoch were simply destroyed. Moreover, we are shown a place which is

37 obviously dangerous for chronographic science the Novgorod pogrom. We are beginning to see the reason why this was the moment when the name Novgorod the Great was taken away from Yaroslavl and ascribed to a town in the Pskov region. The underlying motivation had been political through and through. The power was seized by a new dynasty the Zakharyins, later known as the Romanovs. They had a domain of their own in Polotsk, which is in Western Russia, and were close to Pskov and the territories of the Hanse. They were obviously striving to distort Russian history in order to conceal the true origins of the Old Russian dynasty, or the Horde (which had hailed from Yaroslavl, also known as Novgorod the Great). This dynasty needed a new virtual homeland somewhere in the Pskov region, or the North-West of Russia, which is whence the Zakharyins themselves had originated. Having changed the geography of historical events (as well as their datings, as one might well assume), the Zakharyins (Romanovs) were creating an illusion of a solid historical foundation for their own genealogy. In 1564 the Oprichnina was established officially. One of the Oprichnina s primary instigators had been the boyar V. M. Youriev- Zakharyin, and the Zakharyins had stood at the centre of the group that had launched the Oprichnina machine ([775], page 225). We deem it extraneous to list the details of the mass repressions here; they are known well enough, and the readers can turn to a great many works that cover the epoch. Let us merely emphasise that the entire mass repression period of Ivan the Terrible is encompassed by the period between 1563 and 1572 the reign of the adolescent Ivan Ivanovich, or, rather, the Zakharyins (future Romanovs), who had ruled on his behalf. The primary landmarks of the terror are as follows: the establishment of the Oprichnina in 1564, the Kazan exile of 1565, the plot of the groom Fyodorov-Chelyadnin, the punitive expedition to Novgorod and the destruction of the city in , the murder of Metropolitan Philip and Herman, the Archbishop of Kazan, the murder of Vladimir Andreyevich, one of the Czar s relations, and the mass executions of the boyars in 1568

38 ([775], page 338). The White Hood Dispute took place in the very same year of Our commentary. The Council was solving the issue of whether the Metropolitan of Moscow had the right for wearing a white hood, which had formerly been the exclusive privilege of the Archbishop of Novgorod. Therefore, the issue had been one of making the rank of the Muscovite Metropolitan (who was actually known as the Metropolitan of Kiev ) equal to that of the Archbishop of Novgorod. The aim had been that of raising the importance of Moscow and diminishing the importance of Novgorod the Great, or Yaroslavl. The destruction of Yaroslavl, or Novgorod the Great in had been the culmination of the terror known as the Oprichnina. It is presumed that the city was demolished completely, with all of its inhabitants sent into exile, also accompanied by the execution of Prince Vladimir Andreyevich Staritskiy, a member of the royal dynasty. The events of this epoch testify to the fact that a civil war began around this time. Our interpretation of these famous events is as follows. The new groups of the Zakharyins (Romanovs) decided to eradicate the Old Russian dynasty of the Horde, whose old capital and citadel had been in Novgorod the Great, or Yaroslavl. The Muscovite troops of the Zakharyins destroyed Novgorod, or Yaroslavl, and executed Vladimir Andreyevich, who could have made claims for the throne as a representative of the old Horde dynasty. As a result, the Horde is provoked into providing armed resistance. The Millerian and Romanovian version presents it as the invasion of the Crimean Khan. In 1571 the Crimeans, or the Horde, approached the walls of Moscow, which was taken and burnt to the ground. Czar Ivan had abandoned his army and made his escape to Rostov ([776], page 162). A short while earlier, in 1569, the Czar had asked for political asylum in England, obviously having an intimation that the events might take a turn for the worse. This is when the Horde turned out victorious. The famous

39 Moscow Process begins. The Horde s power grows, and the Zakharyins (Romanovs) begin to suffer defeat after defeat, likewise their allies. The activity of the famed Malyuta Skouratov-Belskiy and Vassily Gryaznoy is dated to this very period it is presumed that they took no part in the initial wave of repressions launched by the Zakharyins. They become active after the Novgorod pogrom ([776], page 160), and therefore act as the representatives of the Horde and merciless punishers of the usurpers (the Zakharyins, later known as the Romanovs). Indeed, Skouratov had helped Ivan the Terrible to get rid of the old guard of the oprichniks ([776], page 175). The guard of the Zakharyins, in other words. It turns out that Malyuta Skouratov of the Horde had been the nemesis of the perpetrators of the Oprichnina terror, hence his demonised image in later historiography. The consensual version of history betrays the origins of its authors the Zakharyins and their offspring, the Romanovs. The victory of the Horde results in the destruction of the old Duma appointed by the Zakharyins, and the execution of Basmanov, its leader. The new Duma was formed of the top ranking aristocracy All of them had suffered from Basmanov s repressions, likewise their relatives ([776], pages ). Immediately after that, the English ambassador was notified that the secret negotiations about the possibility that the Czar and his family might be given asylum in England were to be ceased ([776], page 189). In 1572, a royal edict came out forbidding the use of the very word Oprichnina ([776], page 190). This is how the first attempt of the Zakharyins (Romanovs) to seize the throne had fallen through. The positions of the Great = Mongolian Horde were restored; moreover, the capital of the country was transferred to Novgorod for a while: The Czar was serious in his intentions to settle in his new residence [Novgorod Auth.]. The royal court on Nikitskaya Street was cleaned, and the Czar s palace prepared for dwelling. A new bell was hung in Yaroslav s Court, next to the royal palace ([775], page 374). Even the royal treasury was transferred to Novgorod from Moscow ([776], page 181). A propos, it turns out that the treasures brought to

40 Novgorod were stored in the cellars of the church that had stood in Yaroslav s Court ([776], page 189). Nowadays it is presumed that the city in question is the remote Novgorod-upon-Volkhov, which is situated deep in the north-western marshes; according to our version, they were taken to the much closer city of Novgorod that is known as Yaroslavl nowadays quite naturally so, seeing as how the latter is the old capital of the Great = Mongolian Empire of the Horde. The famous Yaroslav s Court is but the palace square in Yaroslavl. The capital of the Horde was temporarily relocated back to the Volga. Let us sum up. Modern historians see the period of in the following light: the de facto power is in the hands of the Zakharyins (also known as the Romanovs), who had concentrated civil powers in their hands and governed the country on behalf of Prince Ivan, a maternal relation of theirs ([776], page 165). Historians tell us that the country was governed from the court of the young Prince Ivan, and that the Zakharyins had ruled on his behalf. Our point of view is as follows. What we claim is virtually the same thing the Zakharyins rule the country on behalf of the young Czar Ivan. The difference between the two versions is that the learned historians consider this period to fall into the 50-year reign of a fictitious Czar known as Ivan the Terrible, whereas we suggest that Ivan IV had already died by that time, and that the regnant monarch was the young Ivan Ivanovich Simeon Beckboulatovich regnant in as the fourth period of Ivan the Terrible In the Millerian and Romanovian history Ivan IV The Terrible abdicated in 1575, and had installed his servitor, a Tartar Khan named Simeon Beckboulatovich, as his heir. The Tartar had settled in the royal palace [sic! Auth.], and the Great Monarch moved to the Arbat [sic! Auth.]. The Czar started to move around Moscow with a simple entourage, just like the boyars, and got into the habit of sitting in the distance from the

41 Great Prince [the Tartar Simeon, that is Auth.], who had sat upon a luxurious throne, heeding his orders meekly ([776], page 195). Simeon had been Head of the Civilian Duma, and was of a royal origin ([776], page 201). These absurdities of the Millerian and Romanovian version make one understand just why the historians tend to interpret these actions of Ivan the Terrible as symptoms of schizophrenia. However, we are of the opinion that nothing of the kind ever took place the documents report the real inauguration of a flesh and blood Russian Czar, also known as Khan Simeon of the Horde. This takes place after the victory of the Horde; there is no other Terrible Czar anywhere in his vicinity. All we have is the phantom reign of Ivan the Terrible, later personified by the Romanovs. In the Millerian and Romanovian version, Ivan the Terrible (who became known as Ivanets of Moscow was granted Pskov and the neighbouring lands as his domain (see [775], page 487). Our reconstruction is as follows. After the civil war of , the Muscovite party of the Zakharyins (the Romanovs) was defeated and put to complete rout. The executions of the head oprichniks begin in Moscow, likewise the archbishop who had slandered Archbishop Philip. Historians call this The Moscow Process, or the Moscow Rout ([775], page 163). The most distinguished old clans, which had been subjected to mass repressions, become the heads of the new Oprichnina, and the military Horde comes to power once again. The Yaroslavl (Novgorod) dynasty is back on the throne. Our version is confirmed by the old documents: The army of the Oprichniks became reinforced by the unprecedented influx of over 500 Novgorod aristocrats The Czar had tried to create a new power out of the Novgorod oprichniks ([776], page 169). The capital was even transferred to Novgorod for a while. The new government was headed by Simeon Beckboulatovich apparently, the youngest son of Ivan III, or the uncle of the deceased Ivan IV. In 1575 the

42 young Czar Ivan Ivanovich is forced to abdicate. In 1576 a lavish official inauguration of Simeon takes place; he adopts the royal name of Ivan. The custom of changing one s name during inauguration had been common in Russia, as we see from the example of Vassily III. Simeon must have been rather old, around 70 years of age. The Millerian and Romanovian version de facto confirms this it turns out that Ivan the Terrible becomes an old man of a frail health around this time. Indeed, according to the historians, in the years that followed [the abdication of Ivan Ivanovich in 1575 Auth.] the Czar, whose health had formerly been perfect, begins his persistent search of good doctors abroad ([776], page 178). It is curious that Moscow all but ceased to be a capital city during this period. First, an attempt of transferring the capital to Novgorod was made, where the construction of the royal court and a mighty citadel had commenced; it was however left unfinished for some reason ([776], page 169). However, the Czar must have had his own reasons for moving the capital to Tver, which is exactly what the historians are telling us: Upon leaving Moscow, Simeon became Great Prince in Tver ([776], page 205). The words Great Prince are in quotation marks apparently, learned historians truly dislike the chronicle s report of Simeon being the Great Prince. How could there be a Great Prince active under a living Czar and Great Prince Ivan the Terrible? However, we are told that Ivan the Terrible also moved to Staritsa, which is right next to Tver, in the last years of his reign, accompanied by his family ([776], page 228). Everything is perfectly clear. As we already mentioned, Czar Simeon had indeed moved to Tver. Ivan the Terrible in the last years of his reign and Khan Simeon are the same historical personality. Thus, historians are of the opinion that between 1572 and 1584 Ivan the Terrible absurdly hands his royal power over to Simeon the Tartar and loses access to the affairs of the state. Our opinion is as follows. After the return of the old Horde dynasty to the position of power in 1572, the Horde Khan Simeon, head of the Civil Duma, becomes the de facto ruler of the Empire. In 1575 the 22-year-old

43 Czar Ivan Ivanovich, who was already deprived of actual royal power in 1572, had to abdicate formally in favour of Simeon. This is the famous abdication of Ivan the Terrible dated to 1575 ([776], page 195). The throne went to Simeon, Khan of the Horde, who had reigned until Therefore, we see Czar (or Khan) Simeon upon the throne in 1575, and in 1576 the second lavish inauguration of Czar Ivan takes place. According to our reconstruction, Khan Simeon came to power after the civil war of (possibly, a son of Ivan III, who had had a son named Simeon). In 1576 he must have received the royal name of Ivan. Indeed, after the inauguration of Ivan, Khan Simeon moves to Tver. The Czar is reported to have spent the rest of his life in Staritsa, near Tver. It is known that Ivan the Terrible had died as an old man of a poor health. However, Ivan IV was born in 1530, so he would have been a mere 54 years of age in 1584, when Ivan the Terrible is presumed to have died. A man of this age would hardly be referred to as old. Historians explain this express aging by Ivan s mental illness. On the other hand, the age of Simeon, the son of Ivan III, must have been 80 years or so in Indeed, Ivan III died in 1505, 79 years before Ivan III had several children; the only son of his we know nothing about is Simeon. This makes our assumption about Simeon Beckboulatovich being the son of Ivan III, or the uncle of Ivan III and the great-uncle of Prince Ivan, quite plausible. Let us also make the following remark in re the change of name at inauguration. This custom is known to have been adhered by some of the Muscovite Great Princes Vassily III, for instance, had been known as Gavriil before having ascended to the throne ([161], page 68). Moreover, it had even been obligatory for the bride of the Czar to change her name in Russia! A bride would have to undergo a ceremony of royal sanctification upon entering the royal palace. A special prayer would be read for this occasion, and a royal diadem put upon her head. The bride was christened princess and given a new royal name ([282[, page 111). This custom had survived until the XVII century. Thus, in 1616

44 Maria Ivanovna Khlopovykh, the bride of Mikhail Romanov, changed her name to that of Nastassya: The Czar s bride moved into the top part of the royal palace and christened Princess Nastassya ([282], page 114). The throne of Moscow had been occupied by Ivans and Vassilys exclusively for over 150 years. This fact by itself leads one to the idea that the change of name at inauguration had been a rule in Russia, since the names of the royal offspring had all been different. The inauguration did not necessarily take place immediately before ascension to the throne Russian Czars followed an old Byzantine tradition of crowning their heirs in infancy. The name Vassily is simply the Greek word for Czar or King Basileus. Prince Ivan apparently was neither jailed nor executed in 1572 due to his small age, and therefore escaped responsibility for the actions of the Oprichnina taken on his behalf. However, he had to vacate the throne. The period between 1572 and 1584, up until the death of Ivan the Terrible is marked by external wars and an utter absence of repressions inside the country The famous synodical of Ivan the Terrible as repentance for the young Czar Ivan Ivanovich We are approaching the end of the epoch of Ivan the Terrible. Ivan Ivanovich dies in 1581 ([776], page 236). His death had made a strange impact on the soul of the Czar, who was in a state of a profound mental crisis and made something utterly unprecedented. He decided to forgive all the traitor boyars, executed at his orders, post mortem Ivan the Terrible gave orders for the deacons to make detailed lists of all the victims of the oprichniks. These lists were sent to the largest monasteries of the country, accompanied by large sums of money ([776], page 236). It is usually presumed that Ivan the Terrible had done this being overcome by remorse after having murdered Prince Ivan. However, according to the documental evidence, Prince Ivan had not been murdered

45 (see [775]), and so the repentance of Ivan the Terrible could have taken place at any time, and not necessarily in Our explanation is as follows the repentance was made by Simeon, or Czar Ivan, for the recently deceased former Czar Ivan Ivanovich, who had been regnant when the Zakharyins carried out their mass repressions. It is perfectly natural that the money should be sent to the churches so as to make the clergy pray for the soul of the former Czar. The readers shall find that our point of view eliminates all the oddities inherent in the official version the Romanovian dating of the penance is quite absurd, since there is no reason why this penance would have to correspond with the death of Ivan Ivanovich, if one is to assume Ivan the Terrible was trying to have his own sins forgiven.

46 6. The creation of the Litsevoy Svod and its dating The illustrated chronicles, known as litsevoy, occupy a special place among all the chronicles found in Moscow. They are comprised of 10 volumes of some 20 thousand pages, and 16 thousand artful miniatures. The two last volumes of the Litsevoy Svod describe the reign of Czar Ivan IV ([775], page 20). Let us ask our normal question: when were these chronicles compiled? We are referring to the famous Litsevoy Svod, which has only been published in 2006, by the way (Aketon, Moscow), which is very odd indeed. The answer is obvious it turns out that a popular XIX century opinion had considered the Litsevoy Svod to have been compiled as recently as in the second half of the XVII century, which is in perfect correspondence with our reconstruction. Indeed, A. Y. Presnyakov was the first to dispute the traditional XIX century opinion that the grandiose chronicles of the Litsevoy Svod had really been compiled in the second half of the XVII century ([775], page 20). A. Y. Presnyakov wrote this in Therefore, historians only learnt about the great antiquity of the Litsevoy Svod at the very end of the XIX century. It is also known that some large-scale chronographic activity was started in the reign of Ivan the Terrible the surviving content lists of the royal archives are telling us so. Let us note that the archives themselves perished completely, although a few content lists have survived ([775], pages 21-22). Documents demonstrate that the writing and the editing of the chronicles peaked in the period of the Oprichnina Skrynnikov points out that this activity had ceased completely after the end of the Oprichnina in The chronographic activity was led by the typesetter Ivan Viskovatiy ([775], page 22), a creature of the Zakharyins (Romanovs), q.v. in [776],

47 page 165. He was executed after the civil war of , q.v. above. It is common knowledge that the tremendous Litsevoy Svod contains numerous subscripts of a political nature; in many cases, they are very close to the famous epistles of Ivan the Terrible to Prince Kurbskiy stylistically ([775], pages 26-27). Let us reiterate that the latter have been identified as a late literary work, apparently dating from the XVII century ([651], comments). Historians themselves admit that the chronicles dating to the epoch of Ivan the Terrible are extremely tendentious presumably edited by Ivan the Terrible personally ([775], pages 28-31).

48 7. In re the numerous wives of Ivan the Terrible We are told about the seven wives of Ivan the Terrible (five or six, depending to several other sources). A large amount, at any rate see the work of N. M. Karamzin, for instance, comment 554 to Volume 9. Had this indeed been the case, we would be faced by an explicit breach of ecclesiastical tradition, and a unique event in Russian history. There was a multitude of books written on this subject from works of dramatic art to collections of jokes. There is nothing odd about it from our point of view. Among the seven wives of Ivan the Terrible were the wives of the three Russian Czars of the Horde (several of them, at any rate). Each of the Czars had been married three times maximum, and so the church tradition that forbids a fourth marriage had not been broken. Therefore there is no record of any conflict between Ivan the Terrible and the church stemming from his multiple marriages, presumably unlawful. The Romanovian theory about the illicit marriages of Ivan the Terrible was introduced much later, already after the Great Strife of the XVI-XVII century. According to our reconstruction, Ivan IV had only been married once to Anastasia Romanova. Having united the reign of Ivan IV and the reigns of his sons into a phantom reign of a nonexistent monarch, historians were forced to ascribe all the wives to a single Czar namely, Ivan the Terrible. This hypothesis is indirectly confirmed by the fact that Ivan the Terrible would often find a bride for his son whenever he decided to marry someone himself. For instance, he chose Marfa Vassilyevna Sobakina, the daughter of a Novgorod merchant, from many maids, having also chosen Yevdokia Bogdanova Saburova as the bride for his oldest son ([282], page 111). Also: before Ivan Vassilyevich decided to marry for the seventh and last time, he also married off his youngest son Fyodor

49 ([282], page 135). According to evidence offered by Possevino, Prince Ivan Ivanovich, the son of Ivan IV, had a total of three wives ([282], page 203). Maria Nagaya, the mother of his son Dmitriy (later declared impostor), must have been the last one of the three. We are therefore of the opinion that the multiple wives of Ivan the Terrible are most likely to be distributed in the following manner: one wife of Ivan IV Anastasia Romanova, three wives of his son Ivan Ivanovich, one wife of Czar Fyodor Irina Godunova, one or two wives of Khan Simeon (Ivan).

50 PART TWO The Great Strife in Russian history of the XVII century

51 8. The period between the death of Ivan the Terrible, also known as Simeon, and the Great Strife According to the Romanovian version, Ivan the Terrible died in Our hypothesis suggests that the deceased can really be identified as the old Khan Simeon, christened Ivan at inauguration. The boyar Godunov gains prominence towards the end of his reign. This personality is usually identified as Boris Godunov, the next Czar. One of his old portraits can be seen in fig It is however odd that Boris had not occupied any prominent positions around that time, unlike other Godunovs Dmitriy, Stepan etc ([775]). We shall return to the Godunov issue below. Fig Czar, or Khan, Boris Godunov. Miniature taken from the Titular Book of Taken from [550], page 101. In 1584 Fyodor Ivanovich ascends to the throne. He is presumed to have

52 been a son of Ivan the Terrible. According to our reconstruction, he had indeed been the son of the previous Czar Simeon, aka Ivan, or the last of the four Czars later compressed into a single figure of Ivan the Terrible. It is known that the relations of Fyodor s wife Irina Godunova all attain influential positions during his reign. Historians presume Fyodor to have died heirless. However, we believe this to be untrue his son was Boris Fyodorovich, the heir to the throne and the next Czar. Later on he was renamed Godunov (the latter being his mother s maiden name) by the Romanovian historians. We shall cite our argumentation in support of this point of view below. Further on, Czar Ivan Ivanovich, the son of Ivan IV, who was removed from power in 1572, as a result of a civil war, died in 1581 at the age of 30 years or so. This event became reflected in the Romanovian and Millerian history as the death of Ivan Ivanovich, the son of Ivan the Terrible in As the further analysis of event demonstrates, he had a son named Dmitriy, q.v. in fig We are thus of the opinion that two dynastic branches came into existence as a result, the first one being the offspring of Ivan IV and Ivan Ivanovich raised by the Romanovs, and the second the descendants of Khan Simeon (Ivan). The latter represent the old Horde dynasty (Czar Simeon, or Ivan, his son, Czar Fyodor Ivanovich, and then the son of Fyodor Czar Boris Fyodorovich, known to us as Boris Godunov nowadays).

53 Fig Our reconstruction of the genealogical tree of the Czars, or Khans, regnant in the epoch of Ivan the Terrible.

54 9. Czar Boris Fyodorovich Godunov 9.1. Czar Boris Fyodorovich is most likely to have been the son of Czar Fyodor Ivanovich In 1591, in the reign of Czar Fyodor Ivanovich, Gazi-Girey (Russian name translating as The Heroic Cossack?) sent a letter to Boris Fyodorovich ( Godunov ). It has survived until the present day, and can be seen in [759], where it is referred to as the epistle of the Crimean Khan to the Muscovite boyar Boris Godunov. However, there are marks from the royal chancellery on the letter, wherein they were registered. These marks tell us something entirely different. Let us quote: There are the following marks on the reverse: 1) Translated in 7099, 2) The epistle to Czar Boris Fyodorovich sent on behalf of the Crimean Czar by Akhmat-Ata, a close friend of his ([759], Volume 1, page 46). The letter is in Arabic, which is why the Muscovite official wrote the subject of the letter on the reverse in Russian an obvious thing to do. The amazing thing is that Godunov is called Czar here as early as in 1591, seven years prior to the death of Czar Fyodor. The reference is made in an original official document, no less! This can only mean that Boris had been the son and heir of Czar Fyodor Ivanovich, which is the only possibility for him to be called Czar. The Muscovite Czars had inherited the Byzantine custom of calling their heirs apparent Czars in childhood or adolescence. Boris Fyodorovich Godunov had done the same; his son Fyodor was referred to as Czar and Great Prince in official papers Our hypothesis about Boris Godunov being the son of

55 Czar Fyodor is confirmed by the old documents We have therefore received a direct indication that Boris Godunov had been the son of Czar Fyodor Ivanovich. This is far from being the only such indication for instance, we learn about Varkoch, the Austrian envoy, arriving in Moscow. The ruler invited him to his palace; the ceremony looked like a royal audience. There were guards in the court that stood from gate to gate, and Boris s boyars were wearing gilded attire and golden chains as they waited for the ambassador in the hall. The Austrian kissed Godunov s hand and gave him the private missive of the emperor ([777], page 38). Our reconstruction makes it perfectly obvious that the passage in question describes the reception of the envoy by Boris, Czar of Moscow. His father had still been alive, but the son and heir was already beginning to do royal duties apart from being referred to as Czar (such as receiving envoys). This was common practice at the Russian court (it suffices to remember Ivan III, who had reigned in the last years of his father, Vassily II. Fyodor, the son and heir of Boris, had also been known as Czar when Boris was still alive. The Romanovian point of view leads us to a great number of contradictions and questions. Could the Czar s brother-in-law have indeed acted in his lieu quite as openly? Where does this office of a governor under a living Czar come from, anyway, one that causes historians a great deal of embarrassment whenever they re forced to mention it in their attempts to make the old document data concur with their distorted perception of the Russian history? We shall proceed to learn the origins of this strange title of a governor, unheard of elsewhere in Russian history. Let us turn to Boris Godunov, another oeuvre of Skrynnikov s ([777]). Apparently, Godunov assumed a great number of loud titles ([777], page 85). He had used them domestically as well as during his contacts with foreign officials. According to Skrynnikov, the foreigners who had resided in Moscow were only happy to oblige him ([777], page 85). For

56 instance, the Englishman Gorsey had made the Queen familiar with the decrees of Boris that were addressed to Gorsey personally ([777], page 85). How was the title of Boris written in these decrees, one wonders? Skrynnikov renders the title as The Governor of the Famed Land Russia Appointed by the Lord ([777], page 86). This is obviously a corruption of the standard Russian formula Czar of All Russia by the Will of the Lord. There were no mysterious governors in Russia there were Czars. The English Queen addressed Boris as Dear Cousin in her letters ([777], page 86). Sovereign rulers were accustomed to addressing each other as brother, cousin, son etc The reasons why the Romanovs had distorted the history of Boris Godunov We are of the opinion that the Romanovs had distorted the pre- Romanovian history to a great extent upon coming to power. This had naturally also concerned the history of Czar Boris, who was declared foreign to the royal bloodline, a stranger who had usurped the throne employing his cunning and intrigue tactics. Russian documents mentioning Boris were edited so as to introduce a strange Governor Boris Godunov in lieu of the royal son and heir Boris Fyodorovich. However, the Romanovs were obviously incapable of rewriting the foreign documents that contained references to Czar Boris, likewise his epistles to foreign rulers kept in their archives. Hence the strange discrepancy between the titles used by the foreigners when addressing Boris and the titles found in the Russian documents edited by the Romanovs. According to Skrynnikov, no matter how the foreigners may have addressed Boris, the officials of the Foreign Office [in Moscow Auth.] had adhered to his actual title rigidly ([777], page 86). The situation is truly amazing. Historians are of the opinion that the foreign rulers had used erroneous titles when they addressed Boris ones that were much higher than the more modest ones allegedly used at

57 home. However, titles were treated extremely seriously in that epoch their use in correspondence was observed meticulously, and a slight alteration of a title used in an official missive could lead to an international conflict. Why had the Romanovs hated Czar Boris Godunov that much? The answer is simple. Under Godunov, the boyar clan of the Romanovs was persecuted the most The brothers Romanov were accused of the gravest crime against the state plotting to murder the Czar. This crime was only punishable by death. Boris had tergiversated for a long while, not knowing what to do Their fate was finally decided. Fyodor Romanov had been forced to take the oaths and was subsequently sent to a faraway northern monastery. His younger brothers were exiled; Alexander, Mikhail and Vassily Romanov died in exile, and rumours hastened to claim a connexion between their demise and certain secret orders given by the Czar After the Romanovs became enthroned, the chroniclers took good care of making Godunov look like a true villain, simultaneously presenting the members of the clan that fell from grace [the Romanovs Auth.] as martyrs ([777], pages ) The legal heir of Czar Fyodor Ivanovich We are told that Czar Fyodor Ivanovich had died intestate ([777], page 106). This strikes us as very odd indeed. Skrynnikov tries to explain this amazing circumstance by Czar Fyodor s poor mental capacity. One may indeed explain anything in this manner. However, Skrynnikov immediately reports the following: there was the official version of the Czar s testament, wherein he had left the throne to his wife Irina, and the kingdom with his own soul to Boris ([777], page 106). Thus, according to the official Russian documents of the epoch, the kingdom had been left to Boris, who was explicitly called heir. This is perfectly natural, if we are to assume that Fyodor had been the father of Boris. Below we shall once again demonstrate that Boris had still been very young when Fyodor died, which must be why the latter had left the

58 throne to Irina, his wife, and the mother of his son not a sister of Boris, as modern historians are trying to convince us. Moreover, according to the sources, after the death of Fyodor his subjects had to swear fealty to Patriarch Iov and the Orthodox faith, Czarina Irina, Governor Boris and his children ([777], page 107). Skrynnikov is of the opinion that this fealty had been preposterous enough to confuse everyone. Indeed, it does seem quite absurd from the traditional point of view a fealty is sworn to the new king; where does Governor Boris come in? After all, he is presumed to have borne no relation to the royal family. A fealty to this governor s children seems even more absurd. There is nothing odd about it in our reconstruction the country swore fealty to Czar Boris, the son of the deceased Czar Fyodor, as well as the royal bloodline, or the children of Boris Could Czar Boris Godunov have been a son of Fyodor Ivanovich, a minor landlord? What do historians tell us about the origins of Godunov? Traditionally, Boris Godunov is presumed to have been a son of a certain Fyodor Ivanovich the landlord, a perfectly obscure figure ([777], page 5). We see his father identified as Fyodor Ivanovich once again! As for the obscurity of this figure it is quite obvious that learned historians cannot find any other historical character bearing the name of Fyodor Ivanovich except for the Czar, whom they simply cannot suspect of having been the father of Godunov. Hence their proclamation that Fyodor Ivanovich, the father of the next Czar, or Godunov, had really been a minor landlord. Moreover, we are told that when the authorities of Moscow compiled the list of the thousand best servants, which included the most distinguished aristocrats of the epoch, neither Fyodor, nor his brother Dmitriy Ivanovich Godunov, were included in this list ([777], page 6). Historians are trying to find an explanation for this fact: they

59 were expunged from the narrow circle of the boyar elite and became mere provincial aristocrats; this had precluded them from getting positions at the court and in the military ([777], page 5). Thus, Czar Boris Godunov appears out of nowhere in the Millerian and Romanovian history that is to say, his immediate predecessors had been anonymous members of nobility bearing no relation to the royal court of Moscow upstarts, in other words. On the other hand, we learn that according to the evidence presented by his own chancellery, Boris had grown at the royal court, while his sister Irina was also raised at the court from the age of seven ([777], page 6). We therefore learn that Irina Godunova had also been raised at the royal court of Moscow. Then she married the heir apparent, Czar Fyodor Ivanovich, and became Czarina. Our opinion is as follows: the paternal ancestors of Boris Godunov had been Russian Czars, and not some anonymous clan of lacklustre landlords. In particular, Fyodor Ivanovich, the father of Boris, had been Czar, and therefore could not be listed among his own best servants the royal chancellery did not write absurdities in official records. Real documents testifying to the royal origins of Boris must have been destroyed by the Romanovs when they came to power for reasons explained below. However, a few traces did in fact survive: the family [of the Godunovs Auth.] was presumably founded by Chet-Murza the Tartar, who is said to have come to Russia under Ivan Kalita. His existence is mentioned in a single record The Tale of Chet. However, this record is relatively recent in origins [as learned historians hasten to assure us Auth.]. The tale was compiled by the monks from the parochial Ipatyevskiy monastery in Kostroma, which had housed the family sepulchre of the Godunovs. Skrynnikov hastens to calm the reader saying that the monks had written the tale in order to manufacture some historical evidence that the dynasty of Boris had been of princely origins and to link the new dynasty to their monastery. The scribes of the Ipatyevskiy monastery claimed that Chet had founded an Orthodox friary

60 in Kostroma on his way from Saray to Moscow The Tale of Chet is full of historical absurdities and isn t to be trusted in the least ([777], page 5). One must however remember the time when Kostroma, located right next to Yaroslavl, had been the imperial capital, q.v. above. This is where the Russian Horde dynasty had come from. The historians have no reason to criticise the monks of the Ipatyevskiy monastery the latter were perfectly right to state that the Godunov dynasty had been founded by one of the closest allies of Ivan Kalita = Caliph = Batu-Khan, the founded of the royal Russian dynasty of the horde. In fig. 9.3 we see a luxurious throne that had belonged to Boris Godunov. The throne looks very Oriental in style. Historians are trying to convince us that the throne in question was made in Iran and given to Boris as a present by Shah Abbas I at the end of the XVI century ([550], page 100). The throne is therefore said to be of a foreign origin; however, one finds this version somewhat off. We are being told that the throne of the great Russian Czar, or Khan, was imported from a distant land and not made locally, as though the Muscovite craftsmen had lacked the skills necessary for making such a throne. We are of the opinion that Godunov s oriental throne simply reflects the style that was common for the Russian court of the XVI century, and must be credited to the Russian craftsmen. It is however possible that the imperial craftsmen weren t all based in the capital of the empire, and could have lived in faraway reaches of the Empire Iran, for instance. The throne could indeed have been brought from afar; however, the craftsmen had made it for the Great Czar, or Khan, of Russia (the Horde) their lord and sovereign, and not a ruler of some distant land.

61 Fig The oriental throne of Boris Godunov. End of the XVI century. Appears to reflect the style and the atmosphere of the Russian court of the Horde quite well. Taken from [550], page The role of Boris Godunov during the reign of Czar Ivan and Czar Fyodor According to the Romanovian history, Boris Godunov had possessed tremendous influence over the Czar in the last years of Ivan the Terrible as regnant monarch. Boris had been the de facto ruler at the end of Ivan s reign as well as during the ensuing reign of Fyodor. Boris was representing the entire Godunov clan in the eyes of the Romanovian historians, a clan they had wholeheartedly loathed. However, let us turn to some of the old documents for evidence. Let us enquire about the official rank of Boris Godunov under Ivan the Terrible. It turns out that there had been no such rank other Godunovs (Dmitriy and Stepan) did in fact hold some of the key positions at the court; however, there isn t a single word uttered about Boris anywhere. Moreover, when Ivan the Terrible was dying, he had entrusted his son and his family to the members of the Duma mentioned in his testament ([777], page 16). Had Boris Godunov been the de facto ruler, he would

62 naturally have been included in this list. This is so obvious that Skrynnikov openly tells us: it is usually presumed that Boris Godunov had been made head of the custodians council by the Czar ([777], page 16). However, this turns out to be untrue. Skrynnikov proceeds to tell us that a critical analysis of the sources exposed the fallacy of this opinion He [Ivan the Terrible Auth.] does not mention Boris Fyodorovich once in said testament Nor does he mention any office Godunov was appointed to ([777], pages 16-17). Boris Godunov occupies no official rank during the reign of Fyodor, either Romanovian historians refer to him as to the brother-in-law of the Czar. All of these oddities are easy enough to explain Boris occupies no office being the heir apparent who already bore the title of the Czar. This is the highest office possible, and he would naturally have no need for any lower The famous legend about the lengthy pleas for Boris to ascend the throne as a political myth that dates from the epoch of the Romanovs The famous legend about Czar Boris ascending to the throne is well familiar to most Russians in a number of renditions, A. S. Pushkin s being the most famous. He is supposed to have refused for a long time, retreated to a monastery and feigned utter reluctance to get involved in the affairs of state. The boyars and the common folk pled for Boris to become crowned Czar many a time, and to no avail he kept on refusing, claiming to have no rights for the throne, and only acquiesced after a long and arduous period of pleas and imploration. All of this is related in a certain group of sources, which are known quite well to have been written by pro- Romanovian authors ([777]). However, there is other surviving evidence of non-romanovian nature and reflecting reality a great deal more accurately in our opinion. As we have seen above, Fyodor entrusted the state to Boris and Czarina Irina.

63 The latter decided to retreat to a nunnery shortly afterwards: It had been a most memorable day when the townspeople had summoned the Czarina to the square her brother Boris had been the next to make a speech; he proclaimed himself the next governor, and the boyars his subjects, likewise the princes. This is how Michael Schiel, an Austrian envoy, rendered the speech of Godunov; there is an official document written in April of the same year wherein the event is recorded. This document tells us that Boris would act together with the boyars and in the interests of the latter to an even greater extent than he had done previously ([777], page 109). We can therefore see that Boris did not refuse the throne furthermore, he considers it obvious that the boyars are to assist him with the matters of the state the formula together with the boyars was standard and used by Czars during inauguration. We believe the latter group of sources to be in better concurrence with reality the young Czar Boris remains on his throne alone, unassisted by the mother, takes the entire power into his hands and assures the people that he would instigate no changes and rule together with the boyars, as he had done before. It has to be pointed out that these records must have survived due to their being of a foreign origin and therefore beyond the reach of the Romanovian censors. The Moscow documents of the Romanovian epoch relate the events in an altogether different manner one that became reflected in history textbooks and even operas: The compilers of the chronicle s final edition make the speech of Boris sound completely different he is supposed to have abdicated in favour of the patriarch ([777], page 109). A certain confusion is supposed to have followed. Our reconstruction makes it perfectly easy to understand Czar Boris had still been very young and lacked the necessary experience and savoir-faire. There must have been other claimants the Shouyskiys, who had naturally tried to wrest the throne away from Boris: the power struggle had split the Duma

64 of the boyars in two the two parties became so hostile towards each other that Boris was forced to leave his residence in the Kremlin and move out of town. He found shelter in the Novodevichiy monastery, which had been well-fortified ([777], pages ). It is amazing how nimbly the Romanovian historians alter the interpretation and assessment of events, keeping the factual data intact for the most part. A perfectly obvious and natural action of the young Czar (seeking temporary refuge in a well-fortified monastery) was presented to the posterity as a cunning ploy of Godunov, the old weaver of intrigues, who had retreated to the monastery tactically, in order to claim the state for himself a short while later. This scenario is reflected well in Mussorgsky s opera Boris Godunov ; however, it has got nothing in common with reality. Skrynnikov is familiar with the documents perfectly well, and he tells us that the facts demonstrate official statements that claim Boris to have fled the city out of his own accord to be untrustworthy ([777], page 112). This is in perfect correspondence with our reconstruction. The party of Boris proved victorious, and had really come after him to the monastery in order to take the new monarch to the already pacified Kremlin ([777], pages ) The age of Czar Boris at the time of his demise It is traditionally assumed that Boris Godunov was born in 1552 ([777], page 5), and ascended to the throne aged 47, in However, the surviving portraits of Czar Boris depict him as a very young man (see the two portraits in [777], fig. 9.4). Furthermore, Boris is presumed to have been 53 years of age when he died in 1605, and his heir had allegedly been a young child.

65 Fig Portrait of the Great Czar, or Khan, Boris Godunov dating from the XVII century. Godunov looks like a Tartar owing to the efforts of the Romanovs. Taken from [777], inset between pages 64 and 65. See also [578], Book 2, page 695. According to our reconstruction, Boris had been born a few good decades later, being the son of Fyodor Ivanovich. Boris may have been around 20 or 25 years of age at the time of his ascension to the throne in It is therefore most likely that Boris had been substantially younger than the Millerian and Romanovian version suggests; the son of Boris must have been very young at the time of his father s death.

66 10. The Great Strife. Czar Dmitriy Ivanovich, also known as Lzhedmitriy the false Dmitriy The unsolved enigma of the Russian history The Russian historical reports that render the biography of the young Prince Dimitriy remain thoroughly enigmatic to date. He is known to us as The Impostor who had been certain of his royal bloodline from childhood Dimitriy had been raised by the boyar family of the Romanovs, and then handed over to the authorities of a monastery for further education. He became initiated into the clergy, and soon made deacon by Patriarch Iov A short while later, Dimitriy, known as Grigoriy, told a fellow friar that he had been the young prince, miraculously saved in Ouglich. This became known to Godunov, who gave orders for Grigoriy to be exiled to the Solovki. Grigoriy decided to flee instead of getting exiled, managed to fool his guards and headed towards Lithuania. He had surfaced in Putivl, where he was received by Archimandrite Spasskiy, and gone to Lithuania afterwards ([183], Volume 2, page 95). Grigoriy went to Kiev next, where he had made his claim about being of a royal bloodline. He was introduced to Sigismund, King of Poland, who had allowed Grigoriy the draft of volunteers for his army, and conceded to pay their allowance. Grigoriy moved into the castle of Prince Mniszech. An anti-godunovian force had emerged ([183], Volume 2, page 96). We have recollected the most important facts from the beginning of Dmitriy s biography, which had always left the researchers with a very odd impression indeed. A typical comment of a historian is quoted below. The shadow of the innocent victim whose identity remains unidentified to date,

67 known to history as Lzhedmitriy (false Dmitriy), had brought a sudden end to all of Godunov s plans and swept the throne clean, riding the crest of historical momentum. This had resulted in a great devastation, a civil war that raged on for years, and a horrendous deal of bloodshed. What real powers could have driven the impersonation of Prince Dimitriy s ghost and made him strong enough to oppose Boris Godunov, who had already sat firmly upon his throne, been recognized by the Civil Council, and an experienced ruler to boot, not to mention his exceptional intelligence and energy, unparalleled by anyone in his entourage? ([183], Volume 2, page 97). Our conception makes all the facts related above easily understood. The so-called false Dimitriy, or Dmitriy the Impostor had indeed been the son of Czar Ivan, namely, Ivan Ivanovich, regnant between 1563 and 1572 and then dethroned, q.v. above. Let us remind the reader that Ivan Ivanovich himself had been raised by the family of the Zakharyins (Romanovs), who had ruled on his behalf due to the young age of their monarch. This is why his son Dmitriy (known as Lzhedmitriy) had also been raised by the Romanovs. The young prince had to take the vows, so as to make his potential claims for the throne invalid in accordance with the old Russian tradition. However, the reader might recollect the fact that Prince Dmitriy is supposed to have been murdered in Ouglich. One must also bear in mind that there were two tragic deaths during the reign of Ivan the Terrible presumably of two different princes bearing the same name of Dmitriy Ivanovich. Both are children of Ivan the Terrible. We already mentioned the two deaths above, the first one a result of a nanny s negligence and the second, the famous Ouglich Tragedy. We are of the opinion that there was a single death of a young prince the version about Dimitriy killed in Ouglich is more recent and dates to the XVII century, the epoch of the Great Strife. The authors were trying to represent Prince Dmitriy Ivanovich, alive and claiming the throne for himself, an impostor. According to our reconstruction, the young Czar Dmitriy Ivanovich had

68 died tragically in 1563, aged ten. Historians are of the opinion that he had died in his infancy. The Ouglich Tragedy version was made up by Shouyskiy, who had been the first to declare Dimitriy an impostor. The real grave of the young Czar Dimitriy Ivanovich had been declared the grave of the very Prince Dimitriy Ivanovich who had opposed Shouyskiy. This is how Dimitriy Ivanovich became falsely known as an impostor. The Romanovs had already sided with Shouyskiy, and must have taken the story further, using it for their own ends. Bear in mind that the Ouglich Tragedy has the name of Shouyskiy written all over it, since he had been investigating the case, according to the documents. What do we see? Skrynnikov tells us openly: We have suspected the original of the Ouglich file to have been tampered with we instantly see that someone has altered the order of pages in the file and purloined the introductory part ([777], page 70). Further also: Prince Shouyskiy had been in charge of the investigation in Ouglich The investigators were confused by the fact that Shouyskiy had given contradictory evidence several times ([777], page 72). Moreover, there is an opinion that the surviving Ouglich materials are an edited copy, which was compiled in Moscow No drafts of this document have reached our age ([777], page 71). Thus, the entire Ouglich case might have been fabricated in Moscow. Skrynnikov concludes as follows: There are reasons to believe the Ouglich materials to have fallen prey to a retrospective estimation of the events related therein ([777], page 72) The boyar plot against Czar Boris We shall give a brief overview of how Dmitriy, aka Lzhedmitriy, came to power, without delving deep into the details we must however emphasise the fact that he became crowned after a coup d état plotted by the boyars against Czar Boris, who had been poisoned: On 13 April [1605 Auth.] he had attended a Duma assembly and dined afterwards. He felt ill as soon as he had left the dining hall; his mouth and nostrils started to

69 bleed, he was promptly forced to take the monastic vows and baptised Bogolepa, and died two hours later ([183], Volume 2, pages ). This had been the second attempt of the Boyars to dethrone Czar Boris a successful one this time. The coup d état was masterminded by the same boyar clans of the Shouyskiys, the Golitsyns and the Romanovs. Further events show that Prince Dmitriy had merely served them as a tool the very same people had tried to kill him in less than a year (successfully, according to historical science; we are of a different opinion, q.v. below). Shouyskiy, who had long been plotting for the throne, became Czar The false Dmitriy as the real Prince Dmitriy, son of Czar Ivan The Romanovian course of Russian history made us certain that the socalled Lzhedmitriy had indeed been an impostor a certain Grishka Otrepyev, man with no name. Historians of the Romanovian epoch have been so persistent in repeating this that it has taken on the appearance of an obvious and self-implying fact. Below we shall tell the reader about their motivations. That which seems so obvious to us today had been anything but obvious to the contemporaries of the false Dmitriy 400 years ago. Everyone who saw him recognized Dmitriy as the real prince the Polish aristocracy and the King of Poland, the Russian Boyars, and, finally, his own mother Czarina Maria Nagaya, already a nun and re-baptised Marfa ([777] and [183], Volume 2). Dmitriy had started to send out decrees calling all Russians to gather under his banners already from Putivl. He had 18 cities in his hands, and the sympathies of the residents of an area that measured 600 verst from the West to the East, who had all recognized him as the real prince. The real Otrepyev was called to Putivl by Dmitriy and shown to the public ([183], Volume 2, page 113). The first thing Dimitriy has done upon arriving in Moscow had been taking measures to rescue his mother, the nun Marfa, back from her

70 monastic incarceration (ibid.). It turns out that she was questioned under Czar Boris and had declared her son to be alive, which resulted in her incarceration at the Troitse-Sergiyev Monastery, with a large body of guards to watch over her (ibid.). Dmitriy had met his mother with a great many people present: No one had a shred of doubt about the man upon the throne being the real son of Czar Ivan. Marfa was placed at the Voskresenskiy Monastery and surrounded with the utmost care and attention; Dimitriy would visit her every day, and linger for several hours ([183], Volume 2, page 116). Furthermore, it turns out that Dimitriy had secretly met his mother, Maria Nagaya, even before his escape to Lithuania, in a monastery at Vyksa. This fact is reflected in the famous chronicle entitled Inoye Skazaniye (literally, a different tale see [777], page 159). Skrynnikov naturally considers these data to be of a completely figmental nature (ibid.). However, our reconstruction suggest a natural explanation of all these implausible facts The Romanovs as the authors of the version that claimed Dmitriy to have been an impostor We are explaining obvious facts here one may well wonder why historians refuse to believe numerous evidence left by contemporaries about Dmitriy being the real son of Ivan, declaring all the eyewitnesses fools and liars? Bear in mind that the final version of the Russian history was written under the Romanovs, whose motivations for declaring Dmitriy an impostor are very easy to see through Dmitriy, who became Czar, had a son called the infant thief by the Romanovian historians; this child should have become the next Czar. However, the Romanovs had other plans for the throne. They usurped power when the son of Dmitriy had still been alive, which renders the election of Mikhail Romanov, the next Czar, illicit, since the son of Dmitriy, the previous Czar, had still been alive. The only option for the Romanovs had been to declare Dmitriy an impostor, which they hastened to do. The existence of a nobly born heir

71 had been another problem, which the Romanovs solved by hanging the young boy on the Spasskiye Gate. The brief corollaries of our reconstruction are as follows: 1. The Romanovs had usurped power and murdered the true heir to the throne, the son of Czar Dmitriy. 2. The history of this epoch was written much later, already under the Romanovs. 3. Declaring Dmitriy an impostor had served a double purpose to conceal the illicit election of Mikhail Romanov and to escape accusations of regicide (the murder of an impostor s son naturally cannot be classified as such). This is one of the most complex moments in Russian history, and the dawn of the Romanovian dynasty. The Romanovs needed to prove the legitimacy of their reign, and this problem had been solved with the simplest means available. Of course, convincing everyone at once had been an impossible task. In Poland, pamphlets aimed at discrediting Mikhail Fyodorovich Romanov had remained in circulation up until the XVII century in particular, he was called Fyodorovich the Chieftain and the so-called Great Prince ([437], page 414). The Romanovs would obviously need to nip the consequences of this embarrassing and dangerous evidence spreading further in the bud. Indeed, in the beginning of 1650 the Czar [Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov Auth.] sent the boyar Grigoriy Pushkin accompanied by a party of other boyars to Warsaw with a diplomatic mission according to Pushkin, His Royal Majesty demands to collect all of the perfidious books and to burn them in the presence of the envoys, and to punish the typesetters, the printers, the owners of the publishing houses where the books were printed, and the landlords who owned the land where these houses had stood, by death ([437], page 416). We can see that the objectives pursued by the Romanovs in the alteration of history had been anything but philosophical or abstract they intended to

72 keep supreme power in their hands and evade possible punishment, which made all means acceptable The plot of the boyars and the murder of Czar Dmitriy, known as Lzhedmitriy the First When we were relating our reconstruction above, we emphasised the fact that Prince Dmitriy was made Czar as a result of a plot. The boyars had killed Czar Boris and crowned Dmitriy. However, Prince Dmitriy had served the purpose of an intermediate ruler the conspiracy was presided over by Shouyskiy, who had craved the throne for himself. This made Prince Dmitriy an obstacle; shortly after the inauguration of the latter, a palace revolution takes place. Dmitriy is presumed to have been killed as a result. The throne is taken by Vassily Shouyskiy. The Romanovs must have sided with Shouyskiy, the leader of the conspiracy, since Fyodor Romanov, later known as Patriarch Filaret, was brought back from his exile and appointed Patriarch of Moscow The reasons for the cremation of the false Dmitriy s body Cremation had not existed in Russia back in the day neither friends or foes got cremated, there had simply been no such tradition. And yet the body of Lzhedmitriy I was cremated for some reason. This event is unique in Russian history why would anyone have to cremate the body of a former ruler? The body of an enemy could be desecrated, exhumed and so on why would anyone want to cremate it? The events are reported in the following manner. The body of the false Dmitriy was dragged from the palace outside: The corpse was mutilated to the extent of looking barely human, let alone recognizable The crowd had stopped at the Voznesenskiy monastery and called out princess Marfa, demanding her to identify the body as that of her son. One of the reports claims her to have given a sharp negative reply, another that she gave

73 the following enigmatic response: Your lot had better asked me when he was still alive he is no son of mine now that he s dead. Yet another evidence taken from the Jesuit records reports that the mother had told the mob dragging the corpse that they should know better, and, upon being threatened, told them explicitly that the body had not belonged to her son ([436], pages ). It is therefore obvious that the response given by the Czarina does not imply a positive identification of the body as that of her son; moreover, her words can be interpreted as a negative identification of the body as that of a stranger. We are of the opinion that Czar Dmitriy had not been killed and managed to elope. The body shown to Czarina Marfa had belonged to someone else hence the mutilations beyond the stage of identification. The body was cremated so as to cover the traces completely ([436], page 288). Czar Dmitriy appears to have survived this plot; we should therefore expect him to re-emerge on the historical arena. Indeed, we learn of a Lzhedmitriy II emerging in Putivl, where the former headquarters of Dmitriy I had been. The first false Dmitriy had been seen by a multitude of people those very crowds recognized him as Czar Dimitriy once again! Shakhovskoy had gathered a great many people around himself and the new contestant in Putivl, claiming the mutineers to have murdered some German in Moscow and not Dimitriy, whom he proclaimed alive. He was urging the masses to rise against the tyranny of Shouyskiy ([183], Volume 2, page 125) Lzhedmitriy II as Czar Dmitriy, also known as Lzhedmitriy I The advent of a new Dimitriy had scared Shouyskiy so much that he had told the troops he sent against him that the enemies were German invaders and not mere mutineers; however, the ruse became exposed when the two armies met ([183], Volume 2, page 126). First, Lzhedmitriy II went to

74 Castle Mniszech in Poland, where his alleged predecessor had once been received as a refugee and where his wife, Marina Mniszech, had resided. An old portrait of hers can be seen in fig It is most significant that she recognized Lzhedmitriy II as her husband; moreover, when the troops of the latter had approached Moscow and became quartered at Tushino, Marina and her father, Prince Mniszech, rejoined with him, moving there from Moscow. Marina declared this very Dmitriy to be her husband. Historians find this highly suspicious after all, they know for certain that the person in question had been someone entirely different. Why could Marina be utterly ignorant of this fact? The explanation offered by historical science is that Marina had been acting under the pressure of her father, conceding to play her role with great reluctance (ibid., page 134). They also tell us that Marina, despite having agreed to her role of the false Dmitriy s wife, blatantly refused to consummate the marriage (ibid.). One might wonder about the source of this knowledge, especially seeing as how she soon gave birth to the son of Lzhedmitriy II (who was instantly dubbed the infant thief by the Romanovs, cf. the nickname they gave to his father The Thief from Tushino ). Fig Old portrait of Marina Mniszech. Dates from the early XVII century, or supposed to have been painted during her lifetime. Taken from [234].

75 This very child had been murdered by the Romanovs afterwards hanged upon the Spasskiye Gate, the objective being the removal of an unnecessary obstacle from their way to the throne. The further actions of Marina Mniszech also become perfectly clear she refused to leave Russia after the death of Lzhedmitriy II and continued to struggle for the Russian throne, aided by the troops headed by Zarutskiy that had still been loyal to her. There is nothing odd about this fact she had known her son to be the rightful heir of Dimitriy, the true Czar, for certain. Had his father been an anonymous thief from Tushino, it would make sense for her to leave the country and head homewards, to Poland, away from the menace presented by an entire country in a state of upheaval. She had this opportunity, but she did not use it, turning towards the Cossacks from Volga, Don and Yaik instead ([183], Volume 2, page 158). The proud and brave woman was defending her own rights and those of her son, heir to the Russian throne of the Horde by birthright. This was followed by a war between Marina aided by the troops of Zarutskiy and the Romanovs one of the most obscure places in Russian history. The modern rendition of this war is most likely to have been thought up by the Romanovs, who had won ([436], pages ). Romanovian historians present it as a war between the Romanovs, lawful rulers of the state, and the thieves. Nevertheless, Kostomarov reports that Zarutskiy had been misnaming himself Czar Dmitriy Ivanovich ([436], page 770). Kostomarov is genuinely surprised to tell us that official documents were written in this name and given to Zarutskiy, which is genuinely odd, seeing as how the warlord had been known to a great many Russians ([436], page 770). It is possible that Czar Dmitriy Ivanovich had still been alive, in which case the Romanovs killed him later, with his death represented as the execution of Zarutskiy. This suspicion is made stronger by the fact that a second Zarutskiy emerged right after the execution there is no prior mention of him anywhere. The person in question is said to have been the

76 Ataman of Cherkessian Cossacks from Malorossiya, a certain Zakhar Zarutskiy possibly, a brother of Ivan, or one of his relations ([436], page 779). Kostomarov has nothing but guesswork to rely upon insofar as the identity of the second Zarutskiy is concerned and whether or not the first Zarutskiy had any brothers. It is however most likely that there had been a single Zarutskiy, and Czar Dmitriy Ivanovich of the Horde had remained by the side of Marina Mniszech later re-baptized Zarutskiy by the Romanovs, who needed to drive away the accusations of regicide. The army of Zarutskiy (Czar Dmitriy?) and Marina Mniszech were defeated. The Romanovs, who had already settled in the capital city of Moscow, managed to split apart the Cossack alliance, which was forming around Marina and Zarutskiy, and make sure the Shah of Persia would remain neutral ([436], page 779). Zarutskiy (Czar Dmitriy Ivanovich?) and Marina were seized by the troops of Mikhail Romanov at Yaik. The former had been impaled. The four-year-old prince, son of Dmitriy and Marina, was hanged in Moscow by the Romanovs ([183], Volume 2, page 159; see also [436], page 778). As we have already explained, the Romanovs had thus put an end to the old Russian dynasty of the Horde.

77 11. The war against Stepan Timofeyevich Razin and the victory of the Romanovs The above implies that the history of the famous revolt of Razin is most likely to have been distorted to a great extent as well. A study of the epoch s documents makes this suspicion of ours ever greater. Let us relate a number of preliminary considerations on this matter. It is presumed that some 60 years after the ascension of the Romanovs to power a great mutiny broke our in Russia it is known as the Mutiny of Razin, or the Peasant War nowadays. The peasants and the Cossacks have presumably rebelled against the landlords and the Czar. The Cossacks were the backbone of Razin s military power. The revolt had engulfed a large part of the Russian empire, but was stifled by the Romanovs eventually. There are no original documents of the defeated party that have survived it is presumed that only about seven or six of them have reached our day and age; however, historians add that only one of them is authentic ([101], pages 8 and 14). We are of the opinion that this single presumed original is also highly suspicious and looks very much like a draft, as one can plainly see from the photocopy in [441], Volume 2, Part 1, Document 53. Historians themselves believe this document to have been compiled by Razin s allies the atamans, and not Razin himself and a long way away from the Volga to boot ([101], page 15). Razin s headquarters were in the Volga region. Moreover, the name Razin may have originally stood for ra-syn, or Son of Ra Son of Volga, in other words, seeing as how the river had also been known under the name Ra. Romanovian historians claim that a certain impostor had accompanied

78 the army of Razin Prince Alexei, who is presumed to have impersonated the deceased son of Czar Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov. Razin had allegedly acted on behalf of this Great Prince. Historians claim Razin to have done this on purpose, trying to make the war against the Romanovs look lawful ([101]). Moreover, we are told that a certain patriarch had accompanied the army of Razin. There were opinions that the latter identifies as none other but Patriarch Nikon, who had been deposed around that time. For instance, B. Coijet, the secretary of the Dutch embassy who visited Moscow in 1676, 5 years after the war, describes two boats upholstered in red and black velvet, which had presumably belonged to Prince Alexei and Patriarch Nikon ([101], page 319). However, all this information has reached us through the filter of the Romanovian chancellery, which must have planted the version that the war with Razin had been a mere uprising of the Cossacks. V. I. Bouganov refers to the multi-volume academic collection of documents about the revolt of Razin ([441]) telling us that the majority of documents have been prepared by the government Hence the terminology we encounter thieves etc, tendentious rendition of facts, suppressio veri and outright mendacities ([101], page 7). It is therefore possible that the names of the prince and the patriarch (Alexei and Nikon) have also been invented by the Romanovian chancellery, possibly in lieu of other names that were to be erased from the memory of the Russian people. It turns out that the Romanovs have even prepared a special decree containing an official version of the revolt ([101], page 31). A propos, this decree contains an amazingly absurd interpretation of Razin s documents. We learn of the following: The perfidious epistles of the thieves claiming the Great Prince Alexei Alexeyevich, righteous son of the Czar to be alive, and heading from the South of Volga towards Kazan and Moscow, presumably at the orders of our royal majesty the Czar in order to punish the boyars, the members of the Duma and the

79 state officials in Moscow and other cities for their alleged treachery ([101], page 31). The same information is presented in an altogether different manner in the few surviving copies of Razin s documents. Let us quote a fragment of the missive sent by one of Razin s atamans to his comrades-in-arms. The original was naturally destroyed; all we have at our disposal is an exact copy made from the perfidious decree of the thieves in the Romanovian camp to be sent to Moscow: May you stand fast in defence of Our Lady, the Great Czar, the Patriarch, Stepan Timofeyevich and all the Orthodox Christian faith ([441], Volume 2, part 1, page 252, document 207). Here s another example. V. I. Bouganov quotes the epistle sent to the city of Kharkov by the great army of the Don and Alexei Grigoryevich. Razin s allies wrote the following: On 15 October of the present year of 179, we, the Great Army of the Don set forth, by the order of the Great Czar [followed by the full title of the Czar V. Bouganov] and by his decree, to serve the Great Czar so as we all might survive the treachery of the boyars ([101], pages 27-28). To encapsulate the above, Razin s army set forth under the banners of the Great Czar against the mutinous boyars in Moscow. Nowadays it is suggested that the naïve Razin s army wanted to protect Alexei Mikhailovich, the unfortunate Muscovite Czar, from the treachery of his own boyars. We consider this hypothesis quite absurd. Do we find the information about the Great Czar being Alexei, son of Alexei Mikhailovich, anywhere in Razin s documents? We do not more often than not, they simply refer to the Great Czar ([441]). The surviving Romanovian copies of Razin s documents either omit the name of the Czar altogether, or replace it by the name of Alexei Mikhailovich see [441], in particular, document 60 in Volume 2, part 2. The Romanovian version is therefore trying to tell us that Razin s decrees contain the orders of Alexei Mikhailovich, the regnant Czar from Moscow, sent to his son and demanding the latter to set forth with his army against his own father. An

80 even more absurd version is that he had led his own army against himself. These preposterous data must result from several poorly coordinated editions of Razin s documents made by the Romanovian chancellery. We shall relate our hypothesis about the true identity of this Great Czar, on whose behalf Razin s epistles were written, below. The official Romanovian version related in the abovementioned decree must have also been used in the numerous accounts of the war with Razin left by foreigners. Apparently, foreign envoys were instructed to adhere to a certain version (see the overview of foreign reports in [101]). The Romanovs were rather vehement in planting their versions: One of the decrees, known as the royal prototype contains a detailed official version of Razin s revolt Local authorities were given orders to repeatedly read this decree aloud in front of assembly halls for all the populace to hear ([101], page 247). Apparently, this was done to record the official version in people s memory. However, multiple official readings must have been insufficient, and there were dissenting individuals. The almanac ([441]) contains a curious edict of the Czar Alexei Mikhailovich sent to Smolensk, our fatherland with orders to execute a simple soldier for some enigmatic phrase that he had uttered. This phrase had unsettled Alexei so much that he ordered for the soldier to be hanged as an example for others to refrain from repeating the words of the pilferers ([441], Volume 2, part 2, page 149). We also learn that the materials left from the questioning of Ivashka were burnt by the government official Ivan Savastianovich Bolshoi Khitrovo at the personal orders of the Czar so that the unseemly words would remain unknown to the people ([441], Volume 2, part 2, page 149). Bear in mind that the official who was entrusted with the incineration of the questioning materials of a simple soldier had a patronymic ending with vich ; this formula was only used for referring to the administrative elite back in the day (see [101], page 119). The victory of the Romanovs had been an arduous one. The Leipzig press of that time reported that Razin had proclaimed himself Czar of

81 both domains [Kazan and Astrakhan Auth.]; many powerful troops fell under his influence. The Czar is so frightened that he doesn t dare to send his army against Razin ([101], page 329). It had taken the Romanovs a great deal of time and effort to change the course of the war in their favour. There is evidence of Western European mercenaries being part of the Romanovian army that had eventually defeated Razin ([441]). The Romanovs had considered Russian and Tartar soldiers untrustworthy; there were many deserters among them, and some had even taken the side of Razin ([101], pages 230 and ). On the contrary, the relations between Razin s army and the foreigners had been strained. Cossacks had usually killed captive foreign mercenaries ([101], page 216). Razin s defeat can probably be partially explained by the fact that there had been very few factories that manufactured firearms and gunpowder in the south of Russia ([441]). Razin s army was forced to rely on the cannons, guns and ammunition taken from the enemy as trophies ([101], pages ). There is surviving evidence of the fact that they refused admittance to volunteers that had no rifles of their own ([101], pages ). Could that have been the primary reason of Razin s defeat? This is rather unlikely. The issue of just how the Romanovs had managed to defeat the Horde led by Razin and later Pougachev requires a detailed study nowadays, seeing as how the Horde had been supported by the overwhelming majority of the country s populace, q.v. above. According to our reconstruction, the famous revolt of Razin had really been a large-scale war between the two Russian states that emerged after the Great Strife of the early XVII century. It is usually presumed that in 1613 Mikhail Romanov became Czar of the entire Russia. This appears to be quite erroneous. Initially, the Romanovs had managed to gather the former lands of the White Russia and the northern parts of the Volga Region (Novgorod the Great, according to our reconstruction), their capital being Moscow. Southern Russia and even the Middle Volga had

82 belonged to another state ruled by the Horde, with its capital in Astrakhan. This state must have had Czars of their own, whose bloodline ascended to the old Horde dynasty of Russia. The Horde must have considered Romanovs usurpers of the throne, referring to them as to traitors and thieves ([101], page 29). Those who had sided with Razin had constantly claimed to be fighting for the Czar against the boyars ([441] and [101]). This must have meant that they did not recognize the boyar clan of the Romanov as rightful rulers of Russia. The Czar of the Horde must have resided in Astrakhan and been considered the Great Czar of All Russia by the allies of Razin. They [the followers of Razin Auth.] had considered the actions of the government to be thievery, using the same terms for referring to the official documents ([101], page 29). The representatives of Razin are known to have qualified the actions of the feudal camp [the Romanovs Auth.] directed against their army and their policies on the territories that fell into their hands as thievery and characterised the official documents in the same terms ([101], page 13). According to our reconstruction, the so-called revolt of Razin ( ) had been a real war accompanied by a great deal of bloodshed. The Muscovite party had been led by Prince Dolgoroukiy ([101], page 21). His headquarters had been in Arzamas (ibid.). The warlord of the Astrakhan army had been Stepan Timofeyevich Razin. V. Bouganov reports the following: The Russian revolt headed by Razin had created a great resonance in Europe, the West in particular Foreign informers had often regarded Russian events [Razin s revolt Auth.] as power struggle, calling them the Tartar Insurrection ([101], page 326). The entire history of the war between the Romanovs and Razin (Son of Ra?) is distorted and obscured to a tremendous extent. There are virtually no documents of Razin s party in existence however, the precious few that have survived allow us to catch a glimpse of the real events of that epoch. We shall provide another quotation, wherein the words prince

83 and lawful are put in question marks by modern historians due to the fact that they unwittingly regard the events in question through the distorting prism of the Romanovian history. The fourth question [of Alexei Mikhailovich to Razin during the questioning of the latter Auth.] had been as follows: Wherefore hast thou addressed Cherkasskiy as a royalty, and what hath he given you in return? The char is referring to another Cherkasskiy, most likely young Prince Andrei, son of Prince Kamboulat Pshimakhovich Cherkasskiy, the Kabardinian Murza. Prince Andrei was converted to the Orthodox faith and fell captive to Razin when the army of the latter had stormed Astrakhan. This character must have played the part of Prince Alexei, and accompanied Razin on his way northwards along the Volga. Razin had made a special boat for him and ordered to upholster it in red velvet. The prince was playing the part of a lawful ruler, quite naturally against his own will; inhabitants of the towns and cities caught in the wave of the insurrection would even swear fealty to him ([101], page 119). Our opinion is as follows: Stepan Timofeyevich Razin had been the military commander of the Great Czar of All Russia from the princely clan of Cherkasskiy. His capital had been in Astrakhan. The southern part of Russia must have become a separate state after the Great Strife of the early XVII century and the usurpation of power by the Romanovs in Moscow, with a Czar of its own, Astrakhan being its capital city. The exact identity of the Cherkasskiy who had been the Czar of Astrakhan is difficult to estimate, seeing as how the history of this period was radically re-written by the Romanovs. Let us just point out two facts pertaining to the issue at hand. 1. It is known that Prince Grigoriy Sounchaleyevich Cherkasskiy, who had been a warlord in Astrakhan shortly before the war with Razin, had been slain in his own domain after the victory of the Romanovs, in 1672 ([770], page 218). 2. A certain Alexei Grigoryevich Cherkashenin, ataman of the mutineers and sworn brother of S. Razin had been active alongside Razin

84 ([441], Volume 2, part 2, page 226). The name Cherkashenin might be a distorted version of the name Cherkasskiy. Apparently, the Cherkasskiys had been an old Russian clan. They were considered to be the offspring of the Egyptian sultans, which is reflected in their coat of arms ([770], page 217; see fig. 9.6). As we demonstrate in Chron5, the mediaeval Egyptian dynasty of the Mamelukes had been of a Mongolian ( Great, or Russian ) origin. It had even been known as Cherkassian, or Cossack. It is known that the Cherkassian sultans reigned in Egypt between 1380 and 1517 ([99], page 745). Let us remind the reader that the Cherkassians had been another name of the Dnepr Cossacks in Russia ([101], page 27; see also [347], Volume 1, page 253). Fig The coat of arms of the Cherkasskiy Princes. According to the corresponding legend, what we see at the top is a turban, which was the crest of the Egyptian sultans the ancestors of the Princes of Cherkasskiy ([193], page 217). Taken from [193], page 217. The initial meaning of the word Cherkassian is all but forgotten nowadays. The historical Cherkassia is located in the vicinity of the Northern Caucasus nowadays; it is also said that at the end of the XV century its name becomes obliterated from historical sources ([347], Volume 3, page 267). However, the word Cherkassians had been widely